Re: [ANN]CureCoin - Earn while you solve cures for Cancer. True 3.0 crypto
If this certificate idea becomes integrated, it might make more sense to create an entirely new coin without basing it on existing source code, so that "Curecoin 2.0" would be built from the ground up around certificate-based coin mintage, and also to provide a simpler platform for forks of that new source to merge-fold with us. Food for thought.
It's a very bad idea. Current Curecoin 1.0 miners/folders would lose even the slightest interest in the coin. Its inevitable collapse would make Curecoin 2.0 a high-risk asset from the very beginning.Actually, I'm afraid that even the fact the you presented such an idea in public will drive the price of Curecoin below its current low values.
Hey primeGPU! Why would they lose interest? All balances from 1.0 would transfer to 2.0, but if 2.0 required some form of protocol change beyond the scope of what could be done (efficiently) by a network fork, then 2.0 would be a separate network with transferred balances. It would continue from where 1.0 stopped. Suppose I should have clarified on that point.
Vorksholk, as was mentioned before in a previous message you express your ideas quite well and offer a lot of information people have an interest in. I realize your time is limited but I do hope you post much more often. So many questions whether thought or written instantly get taken care of when you post your thoughts. Thanks for the information!
My personal feelings are that more integration and hopefully acceptance from Stanford and PL can only help legitimize CureCoin for the long term. I don't want to alienate anyone but the fact is that many miners that became folders will leave this project when it no longer profitable to fold. Trying to make the coin "profitable" in my view shouldn't be the point, but I know large scale miners have no choice in the matter because they have bills to pay.
I can only ask that when their hardware is no longer profitable but is still functional please redirect it back to CureCoin and folding. Don't immediately sell your CureCoins. Just see what happens in a couple years. Consider it buying a lottery ticket and the work done just might save your life someday. At least that is how I look at it.
I've read several articles where people realized they had several million dollars in Bitoins on their hard drives. I hope that same thing happens with my CureCoins someday.
Win, lose, or draw though, at least the processing actually did some real valuable work.
My personal feelings are that more integration and hopefully acceptance from Stanford and PL can only help legitimize CureCoin for the long term. I don't want to alienate anyone but the fact is that many miners that became folders will leave this project when it no longer profitable to fold. Trying to make the coin "profitable" in my view shouldn't be the point, but I know large scale miners have no choice in the matter because they have bills to pay.
I can only ask that when their hardware is no longer profitable but is still functional please redirect it back to CureCoin and folding. Don't immediately sell your CureCoins. Just see what happens in a couple years. Consider it buying a lottery ticket and the work done just might save your life someday. At least that is how I look at it.
I've read several articles where people realized they had several million dollars in Bitoins on their hard drives. I hope that same thing happens with my CureCoins someday.
Win, lose, or draw though, at least the processing actually did some real valuable work.Thanks! Yeah, I've been more active on IRC, but I'll become more active here too. Additional integration/acceptance from Stanford/PL is definitely a large component of the coin's future success, though given the current state of cryptocurrencies, it's no surprise that they want to stay fairly separated at the moment, which we understand.